Difference between revisions of "Talk:Barack Hussein Obama"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 339: Line 339:
I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.

Revision as of 20:31, 28 May 2011

This Talk Page is for Discussion Focused on the Improvement of the Corresponding Article
  • Your post should not deviate from the aforementioned purpose; this is not a page for debate on the topic.
  • Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~).
  • Please place new text under old text; click here to add a new section.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
For article guidelines please see the Commandments and Guidelines


Jeff Rense may not be a such a good source. The Anti-Defamation League accuses him of promoting anti-Semitic views and 9/11 Conspiracy theories. OTOH, what is wrong with a Pravda article written in the post Soviet-censorship era when democratic Russia hungars to exercise a free press, open discussion and discernment of facts? Rob Smith 22:39, 23 January 2010 (EST)

See my talk page, Rob. I never noticed who added the Pravda cite, so if you say so, it is of course fine with me, and please add it back if you haven't already! I now suspect it was yet another vandal site troll stirring the pot, so feel free to deal with him as well. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:02, 24 January 2010 (EST)

Terror Attacks

I have an issue with a claim made in the second paragraph. Since abandoning the "War on Terror" in Obama's first year, the United States has suffered more terrorist attacks with deadly intent on American soil than in the previous eight years combined. Since Obama replaced the 'Global War on Terror' with 'Overseas Contingency Operation', there have been only four domestic terrorist attacks, a far cry from the 19 that took place under Bush's tenure. This sentence should be reworded or removed in its entirety; it only makes the article look embarrassing. --MichaelJB 15:46, 25 January 2010 (EST)

More liberal poppycock, Michael? Even the New York Times counts more, excluding 9/11, under Obama. Perhaps you should consider sources other than the Kos? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)
A short time ago you gave me grief for making assumptions, yet here you are doing the same. I didn't get any information from Kos, it all came from legitimate news sources. Do you really believe that more terror attacks occurred on US soil from March 2009 to January 2010 than in the eight years of the Bush administration? I would really like to see all your references for making such a bold claim. And why would you want to exclude the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
Some people have been making some really stupid claims lately about domestic terror. Dana Perino and Rudy Guiliani both claimed there was not a terror attack on the US when Bush was in office. The fact that these people could make such stupidly partisan claims is incredible. [1] [2] The claim made in this article reeks of the same idiocy of Perino and Guiliani, why not delete the sentence or at least make it factual? --MichaelJB 20:23, 25 January 2010 (EST)
The facts are undeniable that America was totally unprepared to protect itself from terrorist homeland attacks as Bush entered office, due to the total lack of focus of the Clinton Administration and Congress on the issue. Bush can in no way be blamed for the 9/11 attacks with any real credibility.
As I have stated many times before, as Mr. Schlafly has stated many times before, as several other Admins have as well, coming here to argue-without-end against our conservative point of view in all articles you come across, is silly. If you and others cannot bring yourselves to accept alternative points of view, so be it. If you want a place to argue against conservatism in general, make your own site or try the Kos or HuffPo; but CP isn't a debate forum, it is a conservative encyclopedia project. Article talk pages are for suggesting ways to improve articles from a conservative point of view, not a liberal one. Is that a clear enough statement? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 21:29, 25 January 2010 (EST)
TK: The change you made is completely unacceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint because instead of correcting an error, you are now highlighting a lie. Three terror attacks occurred during Pres. Bush's last year in office. I sent you links to all three events but you are willing to over look such trivial matters as the truth. It's funny that a liberal who has been blocked twice for pointing out errors and outright falsehoods is vilified as a trouble-maker while the conservatives that knowingly mislead and lie are in charge of an alleged 'trustworthy encyclopedia'.
I'm trying to make these changes because I don't want Americans to look stupid, even the conservative ones. It's an uphill battle.
Gunman killed two people in a church. [3]
Suicide bomber attacked a Georgia law firm. [4]
Two police officers were killed by a bomb placed in a bank. [5]
--MichaelJB 01:25, 29 January 2010 (EST)

MichaelJB you cannot tell the difference between Muslim terrorists and someone with an ax to grind? Godspeed! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:36, 29 January 2010 (EST)v

So Michael's point is that progressive liberal leftwing commie socialist (or whatever the flavor of the week) Prof. Amy Bishop conducted a domestic overseas contingency operation attack. It's beginning to make sense. How would we classify the guy who crashed the plane into the IRS building in Houston, a tax protester who railed against corporations. Dang, this is a tuff one.... Rob Smith 08:13, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Middle name in article title?

Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded.

It strikes to me odd that the title of the article is Barach Hussein Obama. While there is nothing wrong with that by itself, looking at the list of all the U.S. presidents, it seems that all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense to rename the article to either Barack Obama or Barack H. Obama to follow suit? Kayvan 18:19, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There is a big difference between Walker or Jefferson and Hussein. My two cents. JacobB 18:22, 26 February 2010 (EST)
What about Ronald Wilson Reagan? DMorris 18:26, 26 February 2010 (EST)
This topic had been discussed before. He decided to be inaugurated with his middle name after not using it during the campaign. He is not ashamed of it and we are not ashamed to include it.--Jpatt 18:29, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Ah, I see. Looking at some lists though ([6] and [7]), it seems that many presidents were also inaugurated in a similar fashion. Kayvan 18:33, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I think that, as all encyclopedias and scholarly works try to do, we should try to decide on a particular set of rules and always follow it. In this case, these are the options:
1) Always cite the full name in the title, so "Barack Hussein Obama", "George Herbert Walker Bush" and "Ronald Wilson Reagan";
2) Always use initials for middle names, so "Barack H. Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald W. Reagan";
3) Use the names in the way they most commonly used, using middle name initials only where they are necessary to distinguish one particular individual from another, therefore "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" and "Ronald Reagan".
We are talking about titles of articles; the full name should always be cited in the body of the article. Personally, I would vote for solution n.3. --Maquissar 18:34, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I like the idea. Either 2 or 3 seem best in my opinion; full names seem a bit to long for article titles. The name that the president was inaugurated with isn't bad either, but it would seem less formal, as some have middle names and others don't. Kayvan 18:38, 26 February 2010 (EST)
I thought about that solution, but then I thought that we should better set very general rules; by this I mean that we should decide how to title page names referring to INDIVIDUALS, not to US PRESIDENTS. Deciding that "the name that the president was inaugurated with" is a rule that, naturally, can only be applied to presidents. --Maquissar 18:41, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Another good rule would be to use the name that is mostly used to refer to that individual; this has the disadvantage of not being objective, but it is also the most effective. So "Barack Obama", "George H.W. Bush" (to distinguish him from his son), "Ronald Reagan", "Eminem" instead of "Marshall Mathers", "O.J. Simpson" instead of "Orenthal J. Simpson"... --Maquissar 18:56, 26 February 2010 (EST)

There isn't any vote here, nor was one asked for. Since Obama tries to soft-pedal his Muslim roots and associations, our editorial policy is to call attention to that fact. In addition you should note the Reagan article, where well before anyone had an inkling Obama would run for President, Conservapedia used his full name, Ronald Wilson Reagan which Reagan himself preferred for formal use. So I submit President Obama isn't being singled out, contrary to the insistence of silly-minded liberals. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:06, 26 February 2010 (EST)

But why call attention to that fact in the title of the article? The fact is never going to be denied. The introduction sentence would still say "Barack Hussein Obama". Italicize his middle name in the introduction or change the font color to bring out the fact if you wish. What I am trying to point at is, why should his middle name be used in the article title? Reagan may have preferred it for formal use, but does Mr. Obama say that same? He is commonly known as Barack Obama; I haven't seen it used in any other way (except Obama, of course). If he is commonly known as that, it would make sense to title the article like that, as should every article on people. Kayvan 21:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
Richard Milhous Nixon was commonly refered to as Milhous by his detracters. Indeed, googling milhouse brings up hundreds of thousands of hits on Nixon that dwarf most all other uses of the name. Now, googling Hussein presents a host of other problems. The Heshamite Dynasty of Hussein bin Ali had been the Islamic Keeper of the Holy places for 700 years until Western British Imperialist interests unseated them and installed the Saudi ruling clan thier place (visualize Islamists dethroning the Pope and installing thier own choice as successor). How does it look when Hussein bin Ali's namesake bows to tne Saudi puppet? Why not focus on how Obama is bringing real change to the whole planet, rather than argue about how things have traditionally been done? Rob Smith 13:14, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Drop it. Further discussion is last-wordism. JacobB 21:14, 26 February 2010 (EST)

On the question of "all the other presidents' articles are titled either without their middle name, or just a middle initial. Wouldn't it make sense ...to follow suit? "
You will recall Barack Hussein Obama is the transformational president of change. Wouldn't it make sense to begin change right here, with his name? (assuming that is his name). Rob Smith 23:54, 26 February 2010 (EST)

--ṬK/Admin/Talk 01:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

Pretty slick conservative trap there TK. despite the fact that you neglected to answer some massive holes in the arguments above, you declare the debate "ended" (even though its not) then decry anything else as last wordism to stifle any further debate. well done--DerikJ 11:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

What holes? We're implementing change. Let's find common ground and compromise. We've done just that. Rob Smith 12:35, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I like your comment on change, Rob, it made me laugh :) Anyway, I don't see how an argument that Obama's slogan being "change" is any reason to title his article to what he is less commonly known as/less traditional. It's pushing it, in a sense. Besides, being a conservative, I would think that you wouldn't want to follow Obama's way of thinking ;) Kayvan 13:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Conservatives are for change, both economic and social. They want to change tax law and abortion rulings, for example. Above all, change public education. Being anti-change is just a vulgar stereotype held by closeminded and intolerant people. Rob Smith 14:09, 27 February 2010 (EST)
I can agree with that. But why "change" how Obama's article is titled when others are titled either without their middle name or with their middle name if they are commonly known and identified by the name, in some cases. Simply changing something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing, there has to be reason, and the reason has to be, well, reasonable. Kayvan 14:44, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Call it the price of progress. Rob Smith 15:17, 27 February 2010 (EST)
In that case, would changing the titles of all the other peoples' articles to include their middle names sound all right to you? It would be progress, after all. Kayvan 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I have always wondered why the Obamabots get so upset with the name Obama's parents chose. Pretty silly. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:40, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it. It's more of just keeping a solid style of titling pages, a format if you want to call it that. Kayvan 17:29, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Which brings us to the question of Barry Soetero. If Obama went by this name, then he may have lied to the Illinois Supreme Court when asked to provide former names, according to this Attorney’s Registration Record. [8] I'm not the sure what the resolution of this issue ever was, and we don't have a word about it in this article. Rob Smith 17:49, 27 February 2010 (EST)

I know I am new here but there really needs to be a consensus amongst all Presidential and Vice President articles, actually this should probably extend to all US politicians. I know there is a specified conservative bias, however the lack organization and consensus has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, it has to do with disorganization and lazyiness by the admins.

If you want to leave the middle, that is fine, however, there would need to be a quick modification of all or the majority of the US Politian article so as not to look so disorganized.Solarguy17 01:01, 10 March 2010 (EST)

You hit the nail on the head. You are new here. Don't come in criticizing and such off the bat. JacobB 01:12, 10 March 2010 (EST)

My criticization is to help the article(s) to be better as a whole. None of the above discussion explains the reasoning for leaving it as is. Just people saying he used it in his inauguration so we use it here, however, almost every pres does this so why not have it that way for everyone????Solarguy17 01:15, 10 March 2010 (EST)

Not really discussion just more of a question. I just recently found this site and was looking through the religious articles and for the most part they seemed pretty good. However, when I come to the political articles, some of them seem a little crazy. I know it is to call more attention to the things that are being overlooked by the media. But I have ask about the middle name thing.

I read all of the information above and I still am not sure why it was decided to leave it as is. Can someone clarify this? Please don't ban me, I noticed that basically everyone with discussion in this thread that isn't an admin now has banned accounts. I personally don't care, I am just confused. StevenS 01:12, 12 March 2010 (EST)

As it says up at the top of this section, "Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded." If you do have one, let's have it. But it sure seems like everyone who signs up to this site and immediately starts complaining has nothing new to say at all. Why don't you spend some time reading here with an open mind first, and complain later? DanielPulido 01:20, 12 March 2010 (EST)

Now, why would a single individual come here under several different user names all in an effort to get the word "Hussein" removed from the title of this article? It makes no sense at all unless that individual has a personal agenda to perform. The article title stays as it is. Karajou 01:42, 12 March 2010 (EST)

My only concern is that the title seems to exist in its current state for no purpose other than to further a bias. The arguments that "well he asked for it" seem to suggest that accuracy and fairness are non-valuable in this wiki. I sincerely hope this is not the case and that I may not be banned and able to start a fun future in helping this wiki grow in the impressive way it has so far. Vidihawk 07:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
"Unless you have some brilliant new argument to add to this section, further discussion is unneeded."

I guess you missed the bold title at the top of this section? Also, see Ronald Wilson Reagan to see how silly your argument is. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:16, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess it wasn't as bright an idea as I had hoped. Heh... It still comes off as somewhat purposeful, though. Okie, I'll back away! - Vidihawk 08:24, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
Purposeful, as in done with the same horribly malevolent intent as my adding Reagan's middle name several years ago? You are giving away your intent in advance, good sir, by refusing to admit your already formed assumptions about us are wrong. I hope you prove me wrong, and turn out to be that rare U.K. denizen that turns out to be open-minded and as fair to us as you wish us to be to you. There have been precious few. And please do check out our editors guide and all of that. We differ quite a bit from Wikipedia. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:33, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
I think we should keep the current title of the article. Furthermore, I think we should replace the top picture, which is currently a picture of Obama, with a picture of an oil drenched pelican (and a new caption) as a tribute to Obama's indifference, sloth and incompetence. conservative 20:36, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top

I moved the material dealing with the present to the top as I thought readers would be more interested in how Obama is screwing up the present. For example, I think Americans right now are very concerned about how Obama is screwing up the economy. Of course, he is also doing a poor job in other areas presently as well such as holding terrorists court cases in civilian courts, etc. etc. conservative 04:30, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

That makes sense to me. I do appreciate letting me try the other timeline structure. However, I didn't really take into consideration the fact that because he is a high profile individual it may benefit readers to see more recent info before his earlier biography facts. At least while he's fulfilling his one failed term as president, your structure makes sense to me. DerekE 12:42, 15 March 2010 (EDT)
As the ==Maoism== section is being being built, we may eventually be able to free up space from the sections on the Ayers/Dohrn relationship by moving some of that material to Ayers own page, and/or creating a new separate page documenting Obama's rise with communist and terrorist assistance. An acceptable title for that page would be needed. Rob Smith 13:23, 15 March 2010 (EDT)


"Any orders he gives to the American military are subject to being refused. Orders that Obama gives to America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff of the military can be refused." --http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-01-2009/106972-Barry_Soetoro-0

Do we really want to cite an article that makes this claim? Do any of us really support this opinion, or if we do, do we support the use of opinion articles as sources in addition to factual ones? --Ben Talk 08:42, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

Is the opinion piece backed by valid and factual citations from the United States Code, Ben, as opposed to a unsupported rant? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 08:47, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

pronunciation of "Pakistan"

This is really considered evidence of anything? I've heard Mark Levin use the Spanish-inflected pronunciation of Sonia Sotomayor's name (so tow my OR rather than so tow MY er), but nobody would claim that proves he's Catholic or Hispanic. Golgaronok 23:55, 9 April 2010 (EDT)

Pronunciation shows an enormous amount about someone's views and history. Obama doesn't use the American pronunciation, and this is telling, since no one else in the public sphere pronounces it in the muslim way but Obama. DouglasA 00:15, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

David Petraeus does [9]. Golgaronok 00:50, 10 April 2010 (EDT) And numerous other languages use a pronunciation closer to the native form. Golgaronok 00:57, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

"Golgaronok" (if that is your name), your quibbles with the entry have already been argued ad nauseum, here, for instance. If you've only come to argue on talk pages, you're wasting your own time. Try making substantive contributions to the project; excessive talk is disfavored here. DanielPulido 01:04, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

I don't see any responses to the points I raised. But it's y'all's funeral. Golgaronok 01:13, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Kind of interesting that Davis Petraeus was mentioned here. When that general was ordered to command US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberal elites decided that his name should be pronounced "BETRAY US". Karajou 01:29, 10 April 2010 (EDT)

Barry Soetoro = birth name?

This may have already been discussed, so forgive me if this has been settled. I noticed that the article says "Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro...", however the articles cited do not support the idea that "Barry Soetoro" is Obama's birth name, in fact quite the opposite. My understanding, from reading the Newsweek article, is that "Barack" is his birth name, although he went by "Barry" when he was younger. His father's name, as I understand it, is Barack Hussein Obama, and he was named after his father. "Seotoro", if I remember right, was his stepfather's last name, so it is unlikely that it would have been part of Obama's birth name. To be clear, I do realize that he spent his younger years being known as "Barry Soetoro", and I think that should be included in the article, I just don't think it was actually his birth name.
Please understand that I am not as knowledgeable in this kind of thing as many other contributors here, so I may have gotten it all wrong - that's why I didn't attempt to edit the article. Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong - I won't be offended and I am curious as to the truth of the matter. Hsmom 18:11, 1 May 2010 (EDT)

According to the citation that shows the birth certificate, the birth name is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II, NOT Barry Soetoro. Also, because there is an actual document, i.e. physical, demonstrable proof, the word "allegedly" should be removed.

Remove name repetition?

Would anyone mind if I removed some of the repetition of Obama's name in certain portions of the article? For example, in this paragraph:

Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and Barack Obama's liberal elitism is consistent with Obama being a narcissist which is a charge that has often been made against Barack Obama. However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an evolutionist. Barack Obama told the York Daily Record that "I believe in evolution...". Barack Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is also in accordance with someone who has a certain degree of social darwinistic thinking. In addition to American liberals giving less to charity, it is also true that American liberals are also more likely to believe in evolution.

I think I could alter it to make it more readable with "Obama's recent pattern of charitable giving and liberal elitism is consistent with that of a narcissist, a charge that has often been made against him."

And so forth. In my linguistics class, we talked about semantic satiation, and I believe that paragraphs like these, along with the fact that it never seems to use pronouns, somewhat diminish the readability of the article. If I were to make this change, I would preserve every wikilink, reference, etc, but I believe it would become more readable. In Christ, Tyler Zoran Talk 09:09, 6 May 2010 (EDT)


Does the entire beginning of the article have to be so laden with insults? Couldnt it simply say what the article will be about, and THEN express views? As it is it appears very unprofessional. 19:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

We believe in the truth here, and the fact that liberals like yourself feign offense at the display of it speaks volumes about you. If you insist on closing your mind, at least take ownership of your deceit! Sign your comments with ~~~~ next time. Godspeed! Tyler Zoran Talk 19:58, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

"The first president who is biracial"

There have been other presidents of more than one race. Bush Jr. is has some German and English ancestry. NP

George W is German and English, is that two races according to our census? I think the readers will understand what biracial refers to.
English and German are not races, and neither is Hispanic. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 22:16, 17 May 2010 (EDT)


I'm glad to see the edit feature is enabled here once more. I think this page needs a revamp to structure information better. I've reorganized everything into a better structure, let me know what you think. I am trying to put a summary of the presidency at the top, information about his life/career next, and then a political summary. This should really improve the page's appearance, as it appears too disorganized right now. --Jzyehoshua 15:56, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

What you're doing is burying important information so fewer users will find it. That's unacceptable. DouglasA 15:57, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

Obama is a Muslim theory and the alleged claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit

Here is what the American Thinker reported: "The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim." That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda."[10] Here is what Hot Air says: http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/06/14/obama-is-a-muslim-take-two/

Personally, I am beginning to think Obama is: not a Muslim, not a Christian, and not an atheist. I think Obama is a narcissist who worships himself. I can also see him telling one person he is a Christian and then later telling someone else he is a Muslim. There are many examples of Obama being insincere such as all the substantive healthcare discussions were going to be on C-Span, etc. etc. conservative 15:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT)

2009 Nobel Peace Prize

I find it strange that there is not a single mention of the president being awarded the Nobel peace prize in this article. Considering that other prominent award winners have it at least mentioned in their respective articles. The Mother Teresa article, for instance, prominently states her award in the introduction to the article, and even political figures like Al Gore and Henry Kissinger (both of whom won the peace prize) have their award at least mentioned in the article. --DenisTR 16:04, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

I agree with you, Denis. It was there, once-upon-a-time, but apparently it was removed in the constant editing turmoil. CP does mention this in the Nobel Prize article. I will add it here, as it should be. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:24, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Faulty Logic

I have a suspicion that Andy Schlafly is secretly a Muslim. Will you deny that, Andy? If you do deny it, then I accuse you of being a Muslim under the concept of Taqiyya. It's like a terrible flow chart that always ends with "You're a Muslim." I realize that you're kind of scraping the barrel with this whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing, but c'mon. Paul 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Paul, you seem to think all claims or facts are relative. They aren't. Truth is supported by logic and evidence.--Andy Schlafly 19:00, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
President Obama clearly has an Islamic background. As an adult, he joined a church and says he's a Christian. I'd say he's as much Muslim as I am Jewish; by Jewish law, my having a Jewish mother makes me Jewish by birth, but I became a Christian by choice as a teenager. Go figure. --Ed Poor Talk 14:04, 3 September 2010 (EDT)
Whether President Obama is Muslim or not is one question; however it is undeniable Obama misspoke or was deceptive while ramping up his ambitions back in 2005 when he told the Chicago Sun-Times, "I am rooted in the Christian tradition." Nowhere on his maternal side, grandma, gramps, or his natural father, or his stepfather, can any Christian rooting be found. Rob Smith 14:37, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Days in office

Barack Obama was inaugurated 4147 days ago and will finish his term in -2686 days. --Ed Poor Talk 14:00, 3 September 2010 (EDT)

Apparent sourcing errors

While looking over this article, I noticed a number of problems - mostly unsourced claims or claims for which the source is no longer available. Since my suggestions will almost certainly be controversial, I will not actually make any further changes to this page.

  • The quote "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship" under the heading "Presidency" is unattributed.
  • The claim that Obama represented ACORN in Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank is unsupported. While court documents do list Obama among the Plaintiff's Attorneys, they do not reference ACORN in any way. [11] This claim seems to have been added by bloggers after the fact. Similarly, the cited reference contains no source for the claim that Obama had anything to do with the CRA, only a completely unsourced allegation that was reprinted almost verbatim here. As far as I can tell, Obama represented ACORN exactly once, on a case involving motor voter laws. [12]
  • The statement "Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982" under the subheading "Birth Certificate Controversy" is unsourced and ambiguous.
  • Much of the content under the subheading "Engineers defeat of Centrist Democrats" is dubious. Two of the cites [13][14] are about Carol Moseley Braun and don't mention Obama at all. There is no indication in any of the sources that Obama was connected to the Braun campaign, so these cites are meaningless. Additionally, the section attributes an anti-Dixon intent to Obama (referring to Obama as "subverting" Dixon's reelection, defined by Conservapedia's own article as "lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence"). What he did was increase voter turnout among the black community, a far cry from what the text implies.
  • The statement "President Obama falsely claimed that the senior citizen group AARP endorsed his administration's health care plan when they never made such an endorsement" under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Its Advocacy Methods" is sourced to a YouTube video that no longer exists. Additionally, it appears that AARP has been supporting health care reform since at least August 2009. [15][16]
  • Similarly, several cites link to YouTube videos that have been removed. Multiple cites under the subheading "Obama Administration Health Care Plan and Liberal Elitism" link to deleted videos, as does the cite for the statement "Barack Obama's "Disinformation Czar" (whose supposed job was to correct disinformation that others are spreading about the Obama administration's health care plan) was caught spreading misleading information." The cite for the statement "Senior citizens are key Democratic party constituents that could kill Obama's socialistic health care plan" links to a private video.

--DrewJ 15:50, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Sorry, Drew, but one glaring misrepresentation really sticks out, and explains why liberals are often accused of playing fast and loose with the truth: While AARP has long advocated health care reform, it specifically repudiated Obama's distortion of the truth, saying they were not endorsing any specific plan, at that time. See how easy it is to distort fact, by omission, and make obviously good-intentioned souls like you doubt the real truth?
You are obviously an editor here, and I would urge you, before making posts such as this one, to try and find substitute sources that back up what is in the story. At the very least, as is the case with the AARP, at least check the facts before stating something is incorrect. It was a very big story at the time, Obama's misstatement, and not at all hard to find....so easy and well-known in fact that some people might be tempted to accuse you of inserting a deliberate Red Herring. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 17:29, 29 September 2010 (EDT)


The first sentence here has a typo: it presumably is meant to read "...said to have been born in..." I'd fix it myself, but the page is so informative (and therefore long) that my poor old computer can't load it to edit. --LanceS 21:49, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Thanks, JPatt got it. --Ed Poor Talk 22:29, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Bryan Fischer: Obama wants to give America back to the Indians

Is this site some kind of liberal parody? Otherwise, this is so serious that is should be included. American Family Association would seem to me as a pretty trustworthy organization, and this Bryan Fischer is writing for them. Any thoughts? – dstone 16:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)

Fact vs Opinion

Okay...I thought maybe this article would be a good place to start. I was introduced to Conservapedia recently, and have been waffling about joining and bcoming an editor, but can no longer refrain. So, I'm extraordinarily new...and I fully expect the welcoming and flame-free arms of this community, as I support the overall efforts of what Conservapedia is trying to accomplish. The road to becoming a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is long, and this site is just starting to make baby steps in that direction. That being said, I will try to keep this short.

FACT: Opinions are not fact. Even expert opinions are not fact. They're just plain old opinions. Despite being in the Commandments, and otherwise stated over and over again, folks seem to have trouble making this distinction. OPINION: If you are unable to make cited references, or present the conservative viewpoint in a reasoned and intelligent manner, I would heavily suggest that you leave the site to those who can. Your "help" is often unhelpful. Especially in an article as...contentious...as this - and I imagine many others, I'll be looking shortly - the talk page is the place to present your opinions. If you cannot site material, find sources that intelligently argue your viewpoint, or just want a second or third pair of eyes and ears, it would be addressed here. Also, if haven't actually read the article that you are citing...do that first, before posting anything at all...

There are several on this page, the most innocuous of which: President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico[28]. The moratorium lapsed in 2008. It says it right in the article, paragraph 4. This statement is spruious and vague and will be reworded to say something like: Then-Senator Obama voted to re-authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This is just a small and harmless example, but, either research the issue before posting, or don't post. If you wish to engage in historical revisionism, or just bottom-barrel opinion mongering, please roll on over to Wikipedia, and leave us be. RyanDav 2 January 2011

I moved this from the top of the page to its current location, to maintain threading. Tyler Zoran Talk 13:35, 2 January 2011 (EST)

Oil Drilling Moratorium, redux

I did not realize that this would be as contentious as it was. The statement is simply poorly worded, I assume unintentionally, and appears to place the blame squarely on one person's shoulders. This is just factually innacurate, nothing more, nothing less. We accept credit where credit is due, and take blame where blame is appropriate - and the blame belongs to the vast majority of the 110th Congress, both the liberal reps and ours - and to deny that is some kind of revisionism, which will not be tolerated. I'm certainly more than willing to be corrected on this, but you can either site sources that support your viewpoint, or you cannot - it really is that easy. In that case, the article would read something like, "then-Senator Obama lobbied heavily for the moratorium to lapse, and led a congressional coalition consisting of Senators Blah, Blah and Blah and Congressmen Such-and-such and So-and-so to further that end, etc..." accompanied by supporting references. I am afraid, however, that a "nuh-uh," or, "because I said so," is simply Not Good Enough. We're counteracting liberal bias, here, not populating the internet with more unfounded claptrap. RyanDav 19:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

If you please, write here your proposal for how this should be written, including the source links. If Obama lobbied heavily for the moritorium to lapse, then the source evidence will say it; if he was a part of a coalition of people, then again the evidence will support that. Since this article is about Obama, it should lean on what he has done while in office. But as far as what the 110th Congress did or didn't do, oh yes, I am in total agreement with you...and so were the vast majority of voters back in November. Karajou 20:00, 3 January 2011 (EST)
He didn't, as far as I know, or have ever read. I don't think any articles arguing that he soley was responsible, or even more responsible than any other rep, exist. The text is already up there. Pretty vanilla. Mentions him by name, but also says, "hey, don't forget about all the other chair-jockeys, too!" But the article is about him, so he gets a name drop for focus. The article is about him as whole, so his Presidential and Senatorial terms would be seperate sections of the same article, so as not to confuse. The 110th was the last Bush-era Congress. In November, we voted out the 111th. We are now in the 112th Congress.
Oh, I also replaced someone's citation from an OpEd piece in the NYTimes with an actual news reference that supported the same point (about the Obama administration's poor response to the Oil Spill). If I didn't know better (and I probably don't), I would suspect that some of the citations here are purposefully planted just to make us look like simpletons. RyanDav 21:39, 3 January 2011 (EST)

Birth Controversy

Could someone please explain to me something I've never quite followed: why does it matter where Obama was born? As far as I can tell, no one is claiming his mother was not a US Citizen, which makes him a "natural born" US citizen even if he was born in Kenya, Moscow, or Riyadh. If the issue is "without a birth certificate we can't be certain his mother is really his mother" then I get it, but this side of things seems to be ignored in favor of controversy over the actual location of the birth. If we interpret "natural born citizen" as "born within the US", then that would exclude the children of Armed Forces personnel stationed overseas with their families at the time their children were born from the presidency, which seems like something liberals would love to do. Ptorquemada 12:09, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Well, John McCain whose father was an Admiral was born to two American parents in Panama Canal Zone. The media questioned his "natural born" citizen status and it seemingly was determined that since both his parents were American citizens who were living out of State because of the Admiral's duties that John McCain's birth status would be considered "natural born. The question concerning Barack Obama is that his father was not a US citizen but was in fact a British subject as Kenya was under British rule at the time. Some suggest that the original conception of "natural born" was that both parents are US citizens at the time of the birth of a child. So there is a question as to his "natural born" status even if he was, in fact, born in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has spent a couple of million dollars fighting any requests for proof of an original long form birth certificate and school records makes some people more convinced that a. he wasn't actually born in Hawaii and that his birth was only registered there or b. because his father was a British subject he had duel citizenship status which would make it doubtful that he would be considered a natural born citizen. There are many questions concerning Obama's "natural born" status because he also appears to have been a citizenship of Indonesia and is supposed to have traveled on an Indonesian passport as an adult. Of course, a lot of questions would be removed if the president just released the original birth certificate. The fact that he hasn't just adds fuel to the fire. Dwain 12:09, 8 April 2011 (EDT)

Birth Certificate Removal?

Now that Obama has finally released his birth certificate, all this about Kenya and Barry Soetoro seems a bit silly. Should we remove it? JimAB 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Has the question of Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport under the name Barry Soetero in 1981 been resolved yet? As well as the statements regarding his application to join the Illinois State Bar Association wherein he answered no to the question of ever using any aliases? Rob Smith 18:12, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

Shortening the article length

I think we need to work on splitting this article; I recently revert a vandal's (mostly) blanking of the page, and my browser would freeze up when I tried to save the page (actually I'm currently trying to save it - and over and over again I'm having no luck). Currently this appears at the top of the edit screen:

WARNING: This page is 144 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections or removing irrelevant information.

Thoughts?--IDuan 00:34, 30 April 2011 (EDT)

First Socialist???

Obama is clearly a socialist, but is he the first to be president as the lead of the article states? The New deal democrats who created social security come to mind.BenD 09:03, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

That certainly may be true. But we are talking about one man who occupies the office of president, not underlings and appopintees. Rob Smith 09:23, 1 May 2011 (EDT)
But couldn't the Presidents who hired them be considered socialists? I still don't know about saying he's the FIRST. KingHanksley 12:31, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

Obama the Socialist

I am counting all the capitalists that have hired self-proclaimed communists. I come up with zero. --Jpatt 12:43, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Update of the article

See Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/update if you'd like to contribute to an update of this article - we'll be keeping a lot of the information that's good, throwing out some information that's a little old, and adding new information - all while hopefully downsizing! All help is appreciated!--IDuan 19:55, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

Bin Laden

Should we at least mention the Bin Laden capture? I feel that in fairness we should give him his one or two accomplishments. We should definitely mention that George W. Bush's policies played a big hand but still Obama could have gone entirely bleeding heart on us and we wouldn't have gotten OBL KingHanksley 11:24, 4 May 2011 (EDT)

From the update - discussion


This is what I feel should be the general sectioning of the article - I think with an article that we have this much information on, what we mostly need to do is use "See also:" pages rather than go into major details.

  • Early life
  • U.S. Senate career (with a note on opposition to the Iraq War - which should be followed up on in the presidential primary race)
  • U.S. Senate career
    • Radical endorsements, support, and get out the vote efforts (better language?)
    • Use of filibuster and obstructionism
    • Voted agaist debt ceiling increase
  • Presidential election (things to cover: experience question, jeremiah wright, PUMA)
    • Primary race
    • National election
  • Presidency
    • Domestic policy
      • Popular Bills (Zadroga, lilly ledbetter fair pay act)
      • Economic plan
        • Stimulus plan
      • Health care
      • The Gulf oil spill
    • Foreign policy
      • Commander-in-Chief
        • Iraq
        • Afghanistan
        • Libya/The Obama Doctine
        • Don't Ask Don't Tell
  • Ideology (mentioning pro-abortion stance, other things not mentioned above)
  • References
  • See also
  • External links

Rob I've bolded two section that I wonder if they should be sections alone; I do 100% agree that they should be mentioned in the text; are you set on them being sections? If so I'll yield--IDuan 00:58, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

Leave bold for now & let's see what develops; Recovery is ambiguous; while total output (GDP growth) has recovered, we've seen several polls just over the past week where 60-70% of respondents still think the US is in recession (despite the fact GDP growth has recovered over the past year and half). Likewise, it certainly has not been a "jobs recovery". I'd suggest this needs a better name. Rob Smith 01:15, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I very much agree - that's a misleading section title - I think what I meant was "Proposed Recovery" - or "Recovery Plan". The latter sounds a little better to my ears. I made a few edits below - I'm gonna hold off on doing anything else till you get a chance to take a look and add things.--IDuan01:22, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I've replaced Recovery with Stimulus, perhaps "Stimulus and budget". Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell seems a little wierd under "Wartime"; is it there solely cause it's a military subject? It could just as easily fit under Idealogy as well (I' not just trying to be argumentative....) Rob Smith 01:40, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
Hmm. Very true. No I think it's definitely a legitimate question. I HAD been thinking that Ideology would just cover what wasn't addressed in the prior sections (since certainly we'd discuss his economic ideology in the "Economic plan" section) - so, yes, I had just placed it under wartime solely because its a military subject. But it is probably more apropos to homosexual rights. I am worried that Ideology will become a bucket of worms, so to speak, only in that it'd be weird to just have a section for DADT under it, so then we'd have to have a super-section for "Homosexual policy", and then super-sections for everything else, making the article very long. I leave it up to you.--IDuan 01:45, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
Alternatively, we can just leave it as is for now. I'm updating the Obama administration article right now, too. That one is structured , "Economic policy", "Foreign policy", etc. Wartime leader is something new. Perhaps, Commander-in-Chief? that would encompass DADT as well as ongoing military operations. Rob Smith 02:08, 3 May 2011 (EDT)
I like that. It's broader and works well. Nice.--IDuan 02:29, 3 May 2011 (EDT)

I took a look at the Wikipedia page on Obama - and I actually like how they organize his presidency - into Domestic policy and foreign policy. I'm going to make some changes to reflect that. I think in the long run it'll actually limit the number of sections we need--IDuan 18:15, 4 May 2011 (EDT)


To the people who worked updating this article. It looks much better now.--AlejandroH 00:43, 10 May 2011 (EDT)


In the spirit of accuracy, I think that all articles should refrain from speculative language (I thought this would be good article to start with). I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but one should not overrule the other. We can still present the conservative view point that other encyclopedias overlook without veering off the path of facts. I think that President Obama has done enough to harm himself without adding inflammatory and opinion statements. This language degrades the reliability of the site. McTone 10:59, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone

You're actually not making encyclopedic edits - for example how you're adding titles ("President Obama"), which is traditionally not done. As you've now been reverted twice I think you should refrain from editing this article.--IDuan 11:35, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That is encyclopaedic, as it is proper to use a person's title in reference material. However, that's not ththe only edits I've made. Most of them being removing speculative speech. Basically we should follow the rule of "if you can't cite it, don't say it."McTone 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone
No it's generally not. See his Wikipedia page if you don't believe. We also don't say "Mr." or "Ms."--IDuan 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
Are we not better than Wikipedia? In any case, this is deferring the point I was making with this heading.McTone 13:01, 23 May 2011 (EDT)McTone


I have read two cases of the word perhaps in the opening section of this article. Shouldn't assumptions like these not belong in an encyclopedia like article, especially in the opening section?- AlexMason

The first one is arguably a wording error ... I'll consider that - the second one is more appropriate; since the event just happened we're not sure what the consequences will be, but if a potential consequence is notable enough it's probably worth stating--IDuan 16:30, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
I'm an underwriter at Fox News and I see stuff like this all the time. I think AlexMason is correct here (as well as the poster in the previous topic). Is this a web encyclopedia or is this an opinion site? Speculating on the outcome of events is tantamount to gossip (highly frowned upon and in fact forbidden by the standards of Conservapedia as I have read the rules and commandments). I really think this should be fixed. I noticed some edits in the history of this page and I've got to stick with Andy's last revision (reverting some of the edits of the previous editor) which kept to the less speculative nature of the article.